CDZ How much evidence is needed to presume guilt?

[Asclepias]

Lets see what and bet I dont what? Havent you noticed Joe is on radio silence after I asked him to prove the woman recanted her story?

The FB post or a link to where it is claimed. I'm pretty sure that would have made the news, dude LOL

You really didnt hear about it did you?

Kavanaugh Accuser's Classmate: 'That It Happened Or Not, I Have No Idea'

Yep, that's the recant. She went from knowing it happened to having no idea. However, your point I believe is that she did not recant that she heard people talking about it.

Thats not a recant. You dont know what recant means. She never said she knew it happened. You know that too which is why you didnt quote her saying she knew it happened. All she said is that she heard other people talking about it.

What she said has been deleted. I'm sure it can be found somewhere, but I'm not doing it.

That being said, if it was the talk of the school for several days, where are the other people that were talking about it?

Her post was captured which is why I provided the link. She didnt change or recant her story. All she did is clarify she didnt hear it directly and she is not going to discuss it with the media.

Thats the FBI's job to find out. The more the merrier and her account corroborates Fords claims.

 

[JoeMoma]

I didn't think you would understand the axiomatic logic that I presented.

There was nothing self evident about your logic. Its actually a logical fallacy that doesnt conform to how the legal system works in this country.

The is no merit to a false accusation.

I agree. However there is merit to Fords accusation.

Thus you are presuming guilt... otherwise Fords accusation is false.

Nope. Presuming merit.

So its possible for him to be totally innocent and for the accusation to have merit? Okay...go with that.

 

[Yarddog]

You cant presume guilt. You can only say someones accusations have merit.

Does Ford's accusation have merit?

Absolutely.

That seems like a presumption of guilt to me because her accusation does not have merit if Kavanagh isn't guilty of what she is accusing him.

Also the incentive to lie on HER part is potentialy huge and should be investigated,seeing as how SHE is the one demanding an FBI investigation. She should also bear a presumption of guilt equal to that of Cavenaugh if that should be the case. Considering the stage which was set.... an Entire Democratic party bent on denying this guys nomination, and then the most predictable thing ever pops up as usual, with other oddities such as Ford wanting Cavenaugh to testify first.

 

[Yarddog]

Nope. There was a woman that posted to facebook that she had heard the assault being talked about in school. Ask Joe. He claims she recanted her story. How could she recant something you claim has never been alleged?

LOL Let's see it....bet ya don't

Lets see what and bet I dont what? Havent you noticed Joe is on radio silence after I asked him to prove the woman recanted her story?

The FB post or a link to where it is claimed. I'm pretty sure that would have made the news, dude LOL

You really didnt hear about it did you?

Kavanaugh Accuser's Classmate: 'That It Happened Or Not, I Have No Idea'

Oh that one? Perhaps you should delve further into her...it seems she realized nobody had been told and she looked like a buffoon, deleted and ran away

You really are bad at this stuff.

Absolutely right. Another retard just trying to pile on in the frenzy. They are afraid of losing Rv W so to them any one is fair game to drag through the mud to achieve their ends. This is all a continuation of the weeping that happened on election night... they have vowed to stop Trump at every turn its pretty obvious

 

[Freiheit]

You cant presume guilt. You can only say someones accusations have merit.

Does Ford's accusation have merit?

Absolutely.

Why does Ms Ford allegation have merit? I see only an unsubstantiated accusation.

 

[Freiheit]

You cant presume guilt. You can only say someones accusations have merit.

Does Ford's accusation have merit?

No. She doesn't have the time and date, or the place, or how she got there. Didn't tell anybody at the time either. IOW, no merit at all. Give me a corroborating witness, bragging by the perp, any kind of evidence at all. But if you got nothing, then well, you got nothing.

Actually there was a witness to the fact that the assault had been discussed in school. Thats a lot more than nothing.

Ms Ford has said she told no one until she told her marriage counselor in 2012. Were the witness and those who dicussed the assault in 1980 psychic?

 

[Asclepias]

There was nothing self evident about your logic. Its actually a logical fallacy that doesnt conform to how the legal system works in this country.

The is no merit to a false accusation.

I agree. However there is merit to Fords accusation.

Thus you are presuming guilt... otherwise Fords accusation is false.

Nope. Presuming merit.

So its possible for him to be totally innocent and for the accusation to have merit? Okay...go with that.

Bingo.
Now youre getting it.

 

[Asclepias]

You cant presume guilt. You can only say someones accusations have merit.

Does Ford's accusation have merit?

Absolutely.

Why does Ms Ford allegation have merit? I see only an unsubstantiated accusation.

Because of Mark Judge and the woman that says she heard other students talking about the sexual assault.

 

[Asclepias]

You cant presume guilt. You can only say someones accusations have merit.

Does Ford's accusation have merit?

No. She doesn't have the time and date, or the place, or how she got there. Didn't tell anybody at the time either. IOW, no merit at all. Give me a corroborating witness, bragging by the perp, any kind of evidence at all. But if you got nothing, then well, you got nothing.

Actually there was a witness to the fact that the assault had been discussed in school. Thats a lot more than nothing.

Ms Ford has said she told no one until she told her marriage counselor in 2012. Were the witness and those who dicussed the assault in 1980 psychic?

Why would they have to be psychic?

 

[Freiheit]

You cant presume guilt. You can only say someones accusations have merit.

Does Ford's accusation have merit?

No. She doesn't have the time and date, or the place, or how she got there. Didn't tell anybody at the time either. IOW, no merit at all. Give me a corroborating witness, bragging by the perp, any kind of evidence at all. But if you got nothing, then well, you got nothing.

Actually there was a witness to the fact that the assault had been discussed in school. Thats a lot more than nothing.

Ms Ford has said she told no one until she told her marriage counselor in 2012. Were the witness and those who dicussed the assault in 1980 psychic?

Why would they have to be psychic?

 

[Freiheit]

You cant presume guilt. You can only say someones accusations have merit.

Does Ford's accusation have merit?

No. She doesn't have the time and date, or the place, or how she got there. Didn't tell anybody at the time either. IOW, no merit at all. Give me a corroborating witness, bragging by the perp, any kind of evidence at all. But if you got nothing, then well, you got nothing.

Actually there was a witness to the fact that the assault had been discussed in school. Thats a lot more than nothing.

Ms Ford has said she told no one until she told her marriage counselor in 2012. Were the witness and those who dicussed the assault in 1980 psychic?

Why would they have to be psychic?

You did not read the post. You missed the sentence just above what you reference. "Ms Ford has said she told no one until she told her marriage counselor in 2012."
You have not anwered my question I think it is because you have no good answer you are merely blowing smoke.

 

[Asclepias]

Does Ford's accusation have merit?

No. She doesn't have the time and date, or the place, or how she got there. Didn't tell anybody at the time either. IOW, no merit at all. Give me a corroborating witness, bragging by the perp, any kind of evidence at all. But if you got nothing, then well, you got nothing.

Actually there was a witness to the fact that the assault had been discussed in school. Thats a lot more than nothing.

Ms Ford has said she told no one until she told her marriage counselor in 2012. Were the witness and those who dicussed the assault in 1980 psychic?

Why would they have to be psychic?

You did not read the post. You missed the sentence just above what you reference. "Ms Ford has said she told no one until she told her marriage counselor in 2012."
You have not anwered my question I think it is because you have no good answer you are merely blowing smoke.

I havent answered your question because it lacks logic. Why do you think the people that she heard discussing the assault had to have been psychic? Once you answer that then I can answer your question.

 

[MarathonMike]

As if you didn't know, I am referring to the accusation of sexual misconduct levied by Christine Blasey Ford against SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Obviously, as things stand now there is no criminal case, it's nothing more than he said she said. After 36 years. She can't remember the date the alleged attack took place, supposedly isn't even sure of the year. Doesn't remember where the event took place, or how she got there. Didn't tell anybody about it at the time, not her parents or closest friends. And the only witnesses say it never happened, except for herself. And to this day we have not yet seen the letter that was sent to Diane Feinstein and the Washington Post.

So, I'm not seeing any evidence here to support her story. Maybe it happened as she said, and maybe it didn't as he said, but are we really going to presume guilt based on nothing more than an unverifiable accusation from 36 years ago? Is that all it takes these days to disqualify somebody from a job? Ok, so the seat on the SCOTUS is not just any job cuz it's for life, although I believe it is possible to impeach a SCOTUS judge. But I am not sure that an unverifiable accusation with no supporting evidence should be enough to vote down the confirmation.

We know there are cases in the past where a woman has accused someone of sexual misconduct, and subsequent investigation has determined the charge to be a lie. Everyone should understand that such cases do some damage to the issue; when such cases reach national attention and are found out to be false then it makes it harder for most people to believe the stories that are true. In addition to that, when we see the Democrats pillorying Kavanaugh for the same thing that Bill Clinton was accused of 20 years ago and excused by the media and the Democratic Party, it has to undermine the credibility of both institutions.

Have we reached the point where a person's reputation and career can be ruined by unfounded accusations, purely for political purposes? Mrs Ford is an Anti-Trump, a true blue lib/dem. And some of them can be pretty extreme and even radical, like the guy who showed up at a GOP baseball practice and started shooting at Repubs, seriously wounding Steve Scalese. We know that both Ford and Kavanaugh and their families have received death threats and other threats of violence, the rhetoric from the Democrats may well stir up some wingnut to do something extreme. Based on nothing more than one woman's accusation of an event that may have taken place 36 years ago. This isn't the way it used to be, and it sure as hell isn't the way this country ought to be governed.

My theory is she was so wasted at the beer party all of the details are hazy. That and it apparently happened 36 friggin years ago. How crystal clear are your recollections of beer parties you attended in high school or college? This is whole "case" is just so colossally stupid.

 

[Freiheit]

No. She doesn't have the time and date, or the place, or how she got there. Didn't tell anybody at the time either. IOW, no merit at all. Give me a corroborating witness, bragging by the perp, any kind of evidence at all. But if you got nothing, then well, you got nothing.

Actually there was a witness to the fact that the assault had been discussed in school. Thats a lot more than nothing.

Ms Ford has said she told no one until she told her marriage counselor in 2012. Were the witness and those who dicussed the assault in 1980 psychic?

Why would they have to be psychic?

You did not read the post. You missed the sentence just above what you reference. "Ms Ford has said she told no one until she told her marriage counselor in 2012."
You have not anwered my question I think it is because you have no good answer you are merely blowing smoke.

I havent answered your question because it lacks logic. Why do you think the people that she heard discussing the assault
had to have been psychic? Once you answer that then I can answer your question.

"Ms Ford has said she told no one until she told her marriage counselor in 2012. Were the witness and those who dicussed the assault in 1980 psychic?"
I answered your question. If Ms Ford did not tell anyone of the assault until 2012 how could anyone know of it in 1980 unless they were psychic.

 

[Freiheit]

Does Ford's accusation have merit?

No. She doesn't have the time and date, or the place, or how she got there. Didn't tell anybody at the time either. IOW, no merit at all. Give me a corroborating witness, bragging by the perp, any kind of evidence at all. But if you got nothing, then well, you got nothing.

Actually there was a witness to the fact that the assault had been discussed in school. Thats a lot more than nothing.

Ms Ford has said she told no one until she told her marriage counselor in 2012. Were the witness and those who dicussed the assault in 1980 psychic?

Why would they have to be psychic?

 

[Freiheit]

No. She doesn't have the time and date, or the place, or how she got there. Didn't tell anybody at the time either. IOW, no merit at all. Give me a corroborating witness, bragging by the perp, any kind of evidence at all. But if you got nothing, then well, you got nothing.

Actually there was a witness to the fact that the assault had been discussed in school. Thats a lot more than nothing.

Ms Ford has said she told no one until she told her marriage counselor in 2012. Were the witness and those who dicussed the assault in 1980 psychic?

Why would they have to be psychic?

You got your answer where is the answer to my question? I believe you are only blowing smoke and lying as you do so often.

 

[frigidweirdo]

As if you didn't know, I am referring to the accusation of sexual misconduct levied by Christine Blasey Ford against SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Obviously, as things stand now there is no criminal case, it's nothing more than he said she said. After 36 years. She can't remember the date the alleged attack took place, supposedly isn't even sure of the year. Doesn't remember where the event took place, or how she got there. Didn't tell anybody about it at the time, not her parents or closest friends. And the only witnesses say it never happened, except for herself. And to this day we have not yet seen the letter that was sent to Diane Feinstein and the Washington Post.

So, I'm not seeing any evidence here to support her story. Maybe it happened as she said, and maybe it didn't as he said, but are we really going to presume guilt based on nothing more than an unverifiable accusation from 36 years ago? Is that all it takes these days to disqualify somebody from a job? Ok, so the seat on the SCOTUS is not just any job cuz it's for life, although I believe it is possible to impeach a SCOTUS judge. But I am not sure that an unverifiable accusation with no supporting evidence should be enough to vote down the confirmation.

We know there are cases in the past where a woman has accused someone of sexual misconduct, and subsequent investigation has determined the charge to be a lie. Everyone should understand that such cases do some damage to the issue; when such cases reach national attention and are found out to be false then it makes it harder for most people to believe the stories that are true. In addition to that, when we see the Democrats pillorying Kavanaugh for the same thing that Bill Clinton was accused of 20 years ago and excused by the media and the Democratic Party, it has to undermine the credibility of both institutions.

Have we reached the point where a person's reputation and career can be ruined by unfounded accusations, purely for political purposes? Mrs Ford is an Anti-Trump, a true blue lib/dem. And some of them can be pretty extreme and even radical, like the guy who showed up at a GOP baseball practice and started shooting at Repubs, seriously wounding Steve Scalese. We know that both Ford and Kavanaugh and their families have received death threats and other threats of violence, the rhetoric from the Democrats may well stir up some wingnut to do something extreme. Based on nothing more than one woman's accusation of an event that may have taken place 36 years ago. This isn't the way it used to be, and it sure as hell isn't the way this country ought to be governed.

But then Trump didn't need to prove guilt with Hillary. So, if I were a Democrat, I'd be like "fuck it, we lost the election because of such a thing, why not win this one in the same way?"

 

[harmonica]

innocent till proven guilty --plain and simple
...I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, but I heard him talking about this the other day
...he had some good points about previous false accusations against others like the Duke lacrosse team/Tawana[ ?] Brawley/etc
...unless there is an official trial--INNOCENT until proven guilty

 

[Hiryuu]

As if you didn't know, I am referring to the accusation of sexual misconduct levied by Christine Blasey Ford against SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Obviously, as things stand now there is no criminal case, it's nothing more than he said she said. After 36 years. She can't remember the date the alleged attack took place, supposedly isn't even sure of the year. Doesn't remember where the event took place, or how she got there. Didn't tell anybody about it at the time, not her parents or closest friends. And the only witnesses say it never happened, except for herself. And to this day we have not yet seen the letter that was sent to Diane Feinstein and the Washington Post.

So, I'm not seeing any evidence here to support her story. Maybe it happened as she said, and maybe it didn't as he said, but are we really going to presume guilt based on nothing more than an unverifiable accusation from 36 years ago? Is that all it takes these days to disqualify somebody from a job? Ok, so the seat on the SCOTUS is not just any job cuz it's for life, although I believe it is possible to impeach a SCOTUS judge. But I am not sure that an unverifiable accusation with no supporting evidence should be enough to vote down the confirmation.

We know there are cases in the past where a woman has accused someone of sexual misconduct, and subsequent investigation has determined the charge to be a lie. Everyone should understand that such cases do some damage to the issue; when such cases reach national attention and are found out to be false then it makes it harder for most people to believe the stories that are true. In addition to that, when we see the Democrats pillorying Kavanaugh for the same thing that Bill Clinton was accused of 20 years ago and excused by the media and the Democratic Party, it has to undermine the credibility of both institutions.

Have we reached the point where a person's reputation and career can be ruined by unfounded accusations, purely for political purposes? Mrs Ford is an Anti-Trump, a true blue lib/dem. And some of them can be pretty extreme and even radical, like the guy who showed up at a GOP baseball practice and started shooting at Repubs, seriously wounding Steve Scalese. We know that both Ford and Kavanaugh and their families have received death threats and other threats of violence, the rhetoric from the Democrats may well stir up some wingnut to do something extreme. Based on nothing more than one woman's accusation of an event that may have taken place 36 years ago. This isn't the way it used to be, and it sure as hell isn't the way this country ought to be governed.

"How much evidence is needed to presume guilt?"

No evidence is required to "presume" anything, because to "presume" something means to assess it (make unjustified demands of something) before testimony and presenting evidence.

 

[MarathonMike]

That seems like a presumption of guilt to me because her accusation does not have merit if Kavanagh isn't guilty of what she is accusing him.

I cant help what it seems like to you. If one followed your logic no one would ever get arrested or be charged with a crime unless the police saw them commit the crime.

I didn't think you would understand the axiomatic logic that I presented.

There was nothing self evident about your logic. Its actually a logical fallacy that doesnt conform to how the legal system works in this country.

The is no merit to a false accusation.

I agree. However there is merit to Fords accusation.

Does Ford's accusation have as much merit as Keith Ellison's girl friend's accusation?